Civilization and Its Troubles is, in large part, a philosophical treatise, in which Freud tries to replace a metaphysical and idealistic framework with a psychological one. He does this by using a therapeutic and performative style of argument, in which he encourages the reader to analyze philosophical problems in the context of his everyday life and to realize that Freud's psychoanalytic explanations fit his experience more closely than metaphysical constructions. By examining problems in this way, Freud wishes to demonstrate that nothing can be learned about man by appealing to abstraction, and that this type of thinking is not only illogical, but is one of the main problems of civilization, since it prevents men from achieve greater happiness. . However, Freud also states that some metaphysical constructions are necessary for men to remain happy and united in society. So, exposing the root of every appeal to the higher nature of man, it seems that psychoanalysis is destructive, if people accepted what it says, to make conscious everything that is unconscious, how would they deal with the problems of civilization? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Civilization and Its Discontents is the most philosophical of Freud's works. He combines many of his previous ideas to produce a commentary on civilization and life in general, normally the realm of philosophers. Freud's past works hinted at and even addressed some philosophical issues, but here he offers an overview of life based on his extensive psychoanalytic findings. Since Freud wants to address philosophical and existential problems, the book seems like a philosophical work. Discusses issues such as religion, aesthetics, ethics, the purpose of life, civilization versus the state of nature, and the problems with civilization. Freud uses some logic, references Schiller, and uses the term Fate in some of his explanations, such as when he expands the notion that a child is dependent on the father into the idea that the feeling of helplessness is "permanently supported by fear." of the higher power of Destiny" (20). Therefore there is no doubt that Freud wishes to address the plight of humanity and is not averse to using logic, literature, poetry or romantic language to convey his ideas .However Freud wishes to distinguish himself from the theologians, philosophers, poets, novelists and leaders of the past who may have used similar language in framing their arguments. He raises philosophical problems as stated by these philosophers to address them differently from many of these thinkers of the past. Freud's argumentative style, in line with his ideas, avoids resorting to logic and abstract ideals, to the superior nature of man, to the soul, to God and to the perfectibility of man, that is, to everything that separates man from animals, to general metaphysical statements. Instead, his style of argumentation is related to metaphysical argumentation just like Wittgenstein's, to make sense of philosophical problems, he looks at the words on which they are centered problems as they are used in everyday language, not as they are idealized and pushed into abstraction by philosophical reasoning. Wittgenstein invites the reader to analyze words as he uses them in everyday life, and in this way to make sense of the philosophical problems surrounding their use. Freud uses a similar method which I will characterize as performative and therapeutic. It does not examine behavior, institutions, culture, or civilization in an abstract or ideal light, but how they exist in reality. The text is performative because it asks the reader to appeal to his own common sense,to past experiences and emotional and behavioral patterns in addressing philosophical questions, and it is therapeutic because it asks them to analyze themselves in the process. For example, he questions the command "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." He suggests that the reader: take a naive attitude towards him, as if we were listening to him for the first time; we will then be unable to repress a feeling of surprise and bewilderment. Why should we do this? What will we need it for? But above all, how to achieve it? How can this be possible? My love is something precious to me that I shouldn't throw away without thinking about it. It imposes duties on me for the fulfillment of which I must be ready to make sacrifices. If I love someone, must they deserve it in some way? (65-66) He then expands on the idea to explain why, from a psychoanalytic point of view, this feeling of surprise is in fact validated by psychology. (we love someone just because they represent our ego or ego ideal). He continues to use this method when he tells the reader that "is the instinct of aggression, which we can detect in ourselves and rightly suppose to be present in others, the factor which disturbs our relations with others?" (69) He then goes on to provide examples, throughout history, in which this instinct has manifested itself. He attempts to further validate and expand this method by stating at the beginning of two chapters that what he had just claimed was simply common knowledge and that he had wasted paper and ink. This probably wasn't entirely true, but it serves to reinforce the reader's belief that what they read was intuitive. Freud therefore uses a performative and therapeutic method because it is particularly appropriate in a psychological context. He wants to show people that his psychoanalytic observations come from real-life situations and common sense. However, he also argues in this way to bring philosophy back down to earth, to free itself from metaphysical constructions and abstract reasoning to discover what is "really" happening. His work is a fairly blatant criticism of religion and some types of philosophy, such as the works of Descartes or Rousseau, political ideology and metaphysics. He launches a harsh attack on philosophy when he states that: The question of the purpose of human life has been raised countless times; has not yet received a satisfactory answer and perhaps does not admit it? It seems, on the contrary, that we had the right to reject the question, because it seems to arise from human presumption, other manifestations of which we are already familiar with. Does no one talk about the purpose of animals' lives? Once again, only religion can answer the question of the purpose of life. One can hardly be wrong in concluding that the idea of ​​life having a purpose stands and falls with the religious system (24). Although he characterizes the idea as religious, we can certainly expand it to the realm of philosophers and metaphysicians, who are also interested in this problem. But Freud rejects this, not for a moment considering the idea that human beings are essentially different from animals. His answer to the "less ambitious question of what men themselves demonstrate by their behavior as the purpose and intention of their lives" is, of course, the pursuit of happiness. This statement nicely summarizes Freud's method of argumentation, his solution to the problem framed as "The answer can hardly be in doubt" and the reader intuitively agreeing. He also criticizes political idealism, especially communism, which is based on the idea of ​​the fundamental goodness of man and ignores the instinct of aggression. He states that "Aggression was not created by property. It reigned without limit in primitive times, and manifests itself already in the nurserychildren almost before the property has given up its original, anal form" (70-71). metaphysics and idealism to explain psychological phenomena, even those that seem most mysterious, a psychological explanation that is not so obvious or intuitive. He, for example , begins by removing the very feeling of spirituality (that oceanic feeling) by denying its divine origin. He explains that the feeling derives from an incomplete separation of the self from the rest of the world, left from childhood when it is not understood that the ego is. separated from its objects. Furthermore, on page 22 he criticizes the idea of ​​God as a "vastly exalted father" and religion as "evidently childish and "alien to reality". It reduces love to the pursuit of pleasure in a long-term sexual relationship, and spiritual love as love for someone who represents one's ego ideal. Even the superego, which Freud used in an earlier work to demonstrate that psychoanalysis recognized man's superior nature, his greater capacity to do good, is revealed here as nothing more than the internalized prohibitions of the ego. parents and authority figures and the aggressive instinct turned inward. Finally, he characterizes art and intellectual work as sublimations of sexual energy, observing that "such satisfactions seem more beautiful and higher." But their intensity is slight compared to that derived from the saturation of raw and primary instinctual impulses; it does not disrupt our physical being" (30). He thus attempts to overturn our current way of thinking, associating what are normally considered the most useful activities with inferior modes of pleasure, and those things usually considered baser, less internally rewarding , with the greatest possible degree of satisfaction is to state that, although humans may feel the need to turn to higher forces to explain life, this does nothing but do humanity a disservice there must be something more, that we must look higher to discover the "truth". However, Freud believes that this is brought to us by an overly demanding superego that tells us that we must separate ourselves from animals and look beyond ourselves. Meaning to the perfectibility of man and the need to fight for a psychologically constructed ideal keeps men particularly unhappy and repressed, with their excessively aggressive and demanding superego. According to Freud, if we could overcome the tendency to “fear” and be willing to accept the true psychoanalytic origin of behavior, we could not blame ourselves so harshly for what is not pure impulse and live a happier and more natural life. However, it seems that this appeal can only go further. If we wish to remain in civilization, Freud suggests that some higher-order metaphysical constructions are necessary. In fact, Freud does not suggest returning to the state of nature, even if "the feeling of happiness that derives from the satisfaction of a wild instinctive impulse not tamed by the ego is incomparably more intense than that which derives from the satisfaction of a tamed instinct". (29), because in this state only a select few would be able to experience this type of happiness (the others presumably miserable and oppressed), and no one would feel safe (73). To maintain this civilization, Freud almost suggests that we must accept the illusion that he spends so much time refuting and even mocking. No feature, however, seems to better characterize civilization than its esteem and encouragement for man's higher mental activities, for his intellectual, scientific, and artistic achievements, and for the leading role it assigns to ideas in human life. Among these ideas, religious systems stand out. Then come the speculationsphilosophical; and finally what we could call man's "ideals", his ideas of a possible improvement of individuals, or peoples or the whole of humanity (47). These ideas, although derived from the repression and sublimation of instinct, are apparently inseparable from society. Freud, in fact, often referred to repression as the main vehicle of society, almost coinciding with it, without which it would be impossible. It therefore seems that within society we need metaphysical constructions for two reasons: first, to unite people and keep them harmonious within society, and second, to allow for a greater degree of happiness in a situation where instincts are repressed. The most obvious example of the first case is the superego. While this is not itself a metaphysical construct, it is responsible for creating and sustaining moral codes and, through repression, causes the need for instinct sublimation. It is this construction that gives rise to commandments such as "love your neighbor" and "love your enemy." Freud characterizes the superego as a sense of guilt, which originally arises from the fear of losing love from parental figures, and then, later in life, turns into an internalization of parental demands. This sense of guilt, or conscience, prevents us from giving voice to instincts considered incompatible with society. People engage in activities such as art, music, and intellectual work as a substitute for satisfying an instinct that the superego forbids. It seems that without this sense of guilt people would feel no moral obligation without fear of punishment. However, the superego causes people to believe that moral obligation arises from man's "higher" nature and that intellectual activities are objectively better than instinctive ones. Furthermore, the idea of ​​justice, according to which there is a right of the community over the individual, arises from the attempt to exercise control over the individual, so that no one can have free rein on their instincts, and exercise power over others through " brute force". This is an important prerequisite for civilization, and is articulated in terms of a democratic ideal, a social morality (49). Finally, the idea that we should love and respect those around us comes from society's constant need to unite its members with a purpose-inhibited libido, in order to combat the aggressive instinct that threatens to tear people apart. This is also the reason for sexual bans: society needs to take the libidinal energy that would normally go to individual sexual satisfaction and redirect it to society as a whole (69). In the second case, metaphysical constructions, or "illusions," often help people cope in a society where powerful instincts must be repressed. He states that «each of us behaves in certain respects like a paranoid, does he correct some aspect of the world that is unbearable for him with the construction of a desire and introduces this delirium into reality? The religions of mankind must be classed among the mass delusions of this kind" (32). He includes art among these delusions and, of course, religion. He speaks of how religion insures itself against suffering by "imposing equitably on each his own path towards the acquisition of happiness and protection from suffering" and "manages to spare many people an individual neurosis" (36). demonstrated that these ideals are delusional - as when he shows the absurdity of "loving thy neighbor" and feeling an indiscriminate love for humanity, and then goes on to discuss the necessity of this libidinal bond to combat the instinct ofdeath. It seems then that, although Freud is committed to unraveling the roots of metaphysical claims and revealing the social origins of supposed absolutes, he also sees the need to support certain delusions and substitutions. Although these types of statements ignore the true origin of human motivation, they are indispensable for the harmony of social life. Therefore, Freud is faced with a dilemma: as a scientist and philosopher, he is committed to discovering truths and condemning illusion. But as a psychologist, he is concerned with human happiness and the betterment of society. But even from the point of view of a psychologist, Freud knows that the happiness of the individual would increase significantly if he was able to cancel the repression of society and give voiceaccording to his instincts, however, he could also suffer from the lack of protective illusions. And if everyone behaved this way, the fabric of society would collapse. So how can Freud conduct his practice? If psychoanalysis is about making conscious everything that is unconscious, how will Freud support certain social restrictions that he considers necessary repressions in the individual? Do you maintain certain delusions in your patients? Because "integration or adaptation to a human community appears as a difficult to avoid condition that must be satisfied before this goal of happiness can be achieved. If this condition could be done without, perhaps it would be preferable". But Freud also states that in a community "the goal of happiness is still present, but it is relegated to the background" (105). But as a psychologist, Freud strives to increase this happiness as much as possible. It therefore seems that its purpose, the increase of individual happiness, is intrinsically divergent from that of the community, but that, in the long run, civilization is a necessary evil for the greater good. the other towards union with other human beings must struggle with each other in every individual" (106). Where does Freud fit into this struggle? He devotes much of the book to revealing the falsity of society's appeals to man's "higher" nature, a vehicle through which we ultimately encourage man to act altruistically rather than selfishly. Freud is committed to exposing this type of illusion, but reluctantly admits that it may be necessary for the human community. In fact, he seems to be very pro-society when he states that civilization represents the eternal struggle between Eros and Thanatos, with society attempting to use Eros to save the human species from the destruction of the aggressive instinct (112). However, Freud's constant criticism of philosophical appeals to man's perfectibility and his capacity for morality shows that he is highly conflicted about the goals of society. Freud's statement that "it is very far from my intention to express an opinion on the value of human civilization" (110), does not ring true. Even if he hesitates about these value judgments, they are quite evident. It often seems that Freud wants to do without society, and sometimes even takes a Nietzschean position, as when he states that "Only the weak have suffered such an extensive invasion of their sexual freedom, and the strongest natures have done so only after a compensatory condition" (61). These prohibitions on sexual freedom, which Freud admits may be necessary to redirect the libido towards social goals, are here dismissed as unjust. It seems that in this passage Freud is glorifying the man who ignores the decrees of society and lives according to his instinct, stronger natures implicitly defined as those who engage in bodily, instinctive rather than sublimated activities. Freud admits that "I have not the courage to rise before my fellow men as a prophet, and I bow to theirs I reproach myself for not being able to offer them any.?